Comment by exfatloss | Hacker News Reader

Comment by exfatloss | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Thanks, I'm quite familiar with Lyle McDonald's work. One of the first to introduce keto to the mainstream, IIRC.

- Starvation experiments are not relevant to a normal person trying to lose fat. Ancel Keys' subjects were military deserters who had no rights and were literally locked up in a prison camp. They also lost tons of lean body mass. Clearly this isn't what anybody wants.

- There is actually a ton of literature out there disproving the "people used to burn more calories and that's they were leaner." E.g. 1940s New York City white collar workers ate more than most people do today and working out was not very popular, yet they were much leaner. There are some populations that used to do heavy manual labor (like farmers) but the correlation isn't really there.

- Bodybuilders/gym enthusiasts, even PED-free, aren't very relevant to the obese. You don't get to 300lbs by slightly overeating and slightly underexercising. Something's severely broken in your body and has been for years.

- Of course thin people eat less. But correlation doesn't prove causation. My argument is that something's broken in obese people's metabolism which causes the to overeat, maybe because they don't achieve satiety from the food they eat. Of course they have to eat more to put on fat, that's just physics.

The starvation experiment was done on conscientious objectors (not "military deserters", although they might have been considered as such by some at the time) and it had the ultimate goal of understanding what was the best diet to make people subject to famine (like many in Europe at the end of WWII) go back to a normal weight. The result was that calories were the main factors, and other aspects of diet were of minor importance.

Weight loss can be predicted, Keys and his team did that. Yes, they lost fat and muscle tissue (diet was very restrictive, and they were not doing any exercise, since it was a particular experiment), at the end they were bones and skin, on purpose. They were also miserable and sick-looking. Some hurt themselves to go out of the experiment.

But I wrote that given "adequate protein and sufficient stimulus" (and not like 500 calories per day), loss of muscle tissue is, for the general population, not a concern (bodybuilders and athletes require different considerations).

There is no disproving whatsoever of people (on average) eating less and doing more manual activities and spending more time outside in the past.

"You don't get to 300lbs by slightly overeating and slightly under exercising". For the vast majority of 300-pound people, that's exactly what happens. They overeat and not use enough energy during their day (can be exercise, manual labor, moving around, fidgeting - they can all add up to more than 1000 calories per day, not 20). Wait 5 years and putting on 100 pounds or more happens.

"Of course thin people eat less. But correlation doesn't prove causation". Of course, it is causation. If people eat (substantially, 50 cal difference are "adjusted") less, myself included, they lose weight.

I wrote in the beginning that I am not referring to your specific case, which I don't know in the specifics, it looks like a medical problem at this point, and I am anyway sympathetic with. People can be strange exceptions. But for people who are 50-100 pounds overweight, eating less, eat enough protein, move more, exercise, is what works for losing fat and being more "healthy".

Well, agree to disagree then. I think I'm not a major outlier. I'm pretty representative of an obese person who's been trying to lose weight his entire life and none of the mainstream advice has ever made a dent.

That's why I'm searching for a strategy that works and is falsifiable, not religious dogma that there is "no disproving whatsoever" for.

I've lost 100lbs before w/o ever restricting my eating or exercising much, so I just know you're wrong on this from personal experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com